Adrian Sutil has been given an 18-month suspended sentence after being found guilty of bodily harm against Lotus team co-owner Eric Lux.

On the second day of proceedings in Munich, Sutil was convicted of causing neck injuries to Lux with a champagne glass following a fight in a nightclub after last year's Chinese Grand Prix.

Sutil said he never intended to hurt Lux and told the court on Monday that he had done everything possible to try and bring the matter to a close. However, Lux made it clear that he had never received the face-to-face apology that he had been after.

The conviction will be a blow to Sutil's hopes of returning to Formula 1 in the future, with the German having lost his drive at Force India to Nico Hulkenberg for this season.

Yeah, the first thing that struck me about it was it seemed out of character. Sutil always seemed pretty chilled and laid back, and not the kind of guy you'd expect to act like a complete tit.I'd say he's gotten off lightly.

Thing is... You don't hit some one without intending to hurt or harm. The very notion of an assault of actual bodily harm without intent is sheer bollocks, though sadly as I know to my disadvantage one all too often used.

If Sutil broke a glass and thrust it as Lux then he intended to hurt him... Maybe he regretted it as soon as he did it, maybe he's genuinely sorry. But in the moment he slashed at lux with a glass in what you assume was in an offensive rather than defensive fashion then he intended harm.

J i m Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> If Sutil broke a glass and thrust it as Lux then> he intended to hurt him... Maybe he regretted it> as soon as he did it, maybe he's genuinely sorry.> But in the moment he slashed at lux with a glass> in what you assume was in an offensive rather than> defensive fashion then he intended harm.

I don't think the glass was broken before it hit Lux's neck. Sutil tried to throw the contents of the glass on Lux, but presumably was a little drunk and hit him with the glass instead. He certainly is lucky that the trial took place in Germany not China.

Interesting that he's also called Hamilton a 'coward' for not turning up as a witness or even giving him a message of support.

I do not believe that an unbroken glass would have made a 8/9cm cut in someone's neck. It may well have caused bruising but surely not a cut that required stitching.

It's also unlikely the glass would have broken as a result of contact with someone's neck, drunken stoupor or not. If it was broken as a result of Sutil stumbling because of a drunken state then it's far more likely that it was broken against a table or side of the bar, and if that being so it stands to reason that he then used it as a weapon.

SchueyFan Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> J i m Wrote:> --------------------------------------------------> -----> > If Sutil broke a glass and thrust it as Lux> then> > he intended to hurt him... Maybe he regretted> it> > as soon as he did it, maybe he's genuinely> sorry.> > But in the moment he slashed at lux with a> glass> > in what you assume was in an offensive rather> than> > defensive fashion then he intended harm.>>> I don't think the glass was broken before it hit> Lux's neck. Sutil tried to throw the contents of> the glass on Lux, but presumably was a little> drunk and hit him with the glass instead. He> certainly is lucky that the trial took place in> Germany not China.>> Interesting that he's also called Hamilton a> 'coward' for not turning up as a witness or even> giving him a message of support.

Apparently he also said Hamilton was "less than a man". To me, that seems ridiculously petty from Sutil. Hamilton was a coward and less than a man for putting his professional commitments as an F1 driver (i.e. his JOB) ahead of a personal matter? Bulls***. Personally I think Sutil was looking for a scapegoat to blame his guilty verdict on - and Hamilton was the perfect person because he'd not gone to the trial.

Who said he'd go to the trial, by the way? The man himself or the defence?

Diax F1 Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Apparently he also said Hamilton was "less than a> man". To me, that seems ridiculously petty from> Sutil. Hamilton was a coward and less than a man> for putting his professional commitments as an F1> driver (i.e. his JOB) ahead of a personal matter?> Bulls***. Personally I think Sutil was looking for> a scapegoat to blame his guilty verdict on - and> Hamilton was the perfect person because he'd not> gone to the trial.

I doubt he had another commitment on, I read it more as Hamilton's management/McLaren probably stopping him from doing it to try and avoid being associated with it. The reaction from McLaren at the launch seems to indicate that as well.

SchueyFan Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Diax F1 Wrote:> --------------------------------------------------> -----> > Apparently he also said Hamilton was "less than> a> > man". To me, that seems ridiculously petty from> > Sutil. Hamilton was a coward and less than a> man> > for putting his professional commitments as an> F1> > driver (i.e. his JOB) ahead of a personal> matter?> > Bulls***. Personally I think Sutil was looking> for> > a scapegoat to blame his guilty verdict on -> and> > Hamilton was the perfect person because he'd> not> > gone to the trial.>> I doubt he had another commitment on, I read it> more as Hamilton's management/McLaren probably> stopping him from doing it to try and avoid being> associated with it. The reaction from McLaren at> the launch seems to indicate that as well.

Didn't manage to catch the launch (was in work). What reaction was there?

Diax F1 Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Didn't manage to catch the launch (was in work).> What reaction was there?

When Lewis was asked about it, a team spokesman apparently intervened and said, "We've been told that Lewis shouldn't really go there [talk about the case] because it might go under appeal. So can we move on to the next question."